A Misleading Dichotomy
There have been obvious fusions of
Christianity and Empire throughout human history. This truth has not been
more apparent than what is seen in American politics and church pulpits. I propose that this fusion has created two
forms of tribalism in church culture. First, we have made a tribe out of our political
parties by aligning the church’s concerns with the government’s concerns for
ruling its people. This is to the degree that we see one party as being characteristically
more Christian than the other. Second, we have perpetuated an already existent tribalism in our nation
as a whole by aligning the church’s concerns with the government’s concerns for
maintaining and preserving itself among other nations.
The problem with the first assertion
(political divide) is that politics addresses interior issues that seek to create
laws by which all citizens abide by and it establishes rights for all to have
within the broader context of our social structure. However, the church has now bought into the
idea that we should impose our moral ideology as a hard and fast rule even for
those who do not share our faith. Those who oppose it become an enemy to be
defeated. If I may echo Paul’s words
here, what concern is it of ours to be the moral judges of outsiders (1 Cor. 5:9-12)? We Christians hold to the morality we do
because we have entered into relationship of loving-fidelity with God and want
to make his ways our ways. I struggle to
see how we can attempt to forcibly impose our morals on those who do not hold
our convictions.
The second aspect of tribalism (the
nation-state) proves itself to be an expanded version of the first. There is an inherent attitude in Western
culture that we are the superior country to all other countries and our system
should become a beaming model for many, which carries frightening undertones of
manifest-destiny. We believe that we are
entitled to our life, liberty and pursuit of personal happiness and anyone that
opposes this is our enemy. Problems arise when the church adopts this mindset as if our self-worth and
identity are defined in the context of this social-structure. Do we really
believe that the American way of freedom is an adequate representative of the
Christian way of freedom? Our future
hope would then rest on our social structure’s stability and when that
stability is threatened our country’s enemies become our enemies. The problem
then escalates when we falsely suppose those enemies to be God’s enemies thereby
reducing our Messiah to that of a tribal deity. Certainly we are in need of recalibrating our vision because we have lost sight of the Eucharist. The Church’s freedom, hope and stability rests on Christ alone and it was
he who saved all sinners; of which we are chief (1 Tim. 1:15).
Origins
Though nationalism is nothing new,
there was a drastic change seen specifically in Christianity early in the fourth-century
with the rise of the “Holy” Roman Empire.
Stanley Hauerwas once remarked that before Constantine it took courage to
be a Christian, but after Constantine it took courage to be a pagan. For any unaware, Constantine supposedly had a
vision during a battle in which he believed Christ would help him conquer. Upon winning that battle he converted to
Christianity (though that might be debatable) and legalized Christianity, but
then asserted his totalitarian-self as chief overseer of the church.[1] This made the church a new political tool for
bringing people under loyal submission to the Roman Empire throughout Rome,
Constantinople and elsewhere. By the end
of the fourth century Theodosius became emperor and made Christianity the official
religion of the empire, but also criminalized those who did not follow it.[2] To both greater and lesser degrees, this has continued to repeat itself throughout Christian
history.
Power in Meekness
However, prior to Constantine,
Christians were radically different. Boyd suggests that they refused to pledge their
allegiance to emperors or fight for any countries and were criticized,
persecuted and killed for being unpatriotic and weak. Yet, they were also characterized by their radical
faithfulness to Christ in living according to his eschatological vision and ethic
with a willingness to die for it. [3] So if this is what it looked like to seek the
kingdom first (Matt. 6:33) then perhaps it is time we rethink what the church’s
politics look like. Hauerwas and
Willimon point out that the church’s purpose and self-worth is not predicated
on our ability to conquer others which tends to put us at odds with nations. Though
the war Christian’s are entrenched in is evident, this war cannot be fought
with weapons of violence and coercion, but are fought through witness and love
which is what Christ was getting at and Paul expounded on (Lk. 22:25-27, 49-51;
Eph. 6:12-19).[4] In this way we become a community that is
free of any need to assert itself over and against others, rather we have
always existed to welcome, embrace and reconcile humans across all national and
cultural boundaries. Perhaps the
narrative we have taken part in requires greater measures of grace and inclusiveness
of our own actions than we want to see…
[1]
Jonathan Hill. The History of Christian
Thought (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press 2003), 60-61.
[2]
Ibid, 64.
[3]
Greg Boyd. The Myth of a Christian
Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2009), 81-82.
[4]
Stanley Hauerwas & William H. Willimon. Resident
Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 1989),
62.
No comments:
Post a Comment